A reply to /u/TimothyGonzalez
To say the Netherlands was occupied by Spain is misleading. The best is to say the two, and several other domains, were under personal union, meaning they had the same monarch.
When the rebellion started, successive monarchs used resources of their empire, centered in Spain, to attempt to quell the rebellion, even if Philip III and IV both largely accepted they could best hope that they could keep only the southern Netherlands.
There are groups that call themselves Sinjoren, descendants of Spanish soldiers sent to fight in the Netherlands. Because of the nature that most people sent were soldiers, there is limited lasting impact. The most lasting of which is arguably that the southern Netherlands, today's Belgium s d Luxembourg, are Catholic.
Of course, some domains rose and fell due to the 80 years' war, but that's another topic.
I'd just like to add to the answers already here that over the course of Spanish campaigns in the Low Countries, many soldiers would have been drawn from other parts of the Hapsburg Empire and sphere of influence, making the importation of a single culture improbable.
The governor of the Low Countries from 1555 to 1559 was Charles V's nephew Emanuel Filibert "Ironhead," a Savoyard. Margaret of Parma, the illegitimate daughter of Charles V who self-identified as Italian, was the following Governor of the Netherlands from 1559 to 1567. Her son, Alessandro Farnese (needless to say also an ethnic Italian) would succeed her.
Recruiting the Ejército de Flandes took place all over catholic Hapsburg territories in Europe. According to Geoffrey Parker in The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road, 1567–1659 (Cambridge University Press, 2004) units from Spain, Italy, Burgundy and Germany fought side-by side. Catholic English mercenary captains were also contracted, and units were also raised from the local Walloons. Divisions were strictly organized along local lines reflecting the various Spanish possessions: a Lombard soldier was (in theory) strictly prohibited from serving in a unit raised in Naples or Sicily. However soldiers found ways to circumvent these restrictions, and it wasn't uncommon for Italian soldiers to attach themselves to Spanish regiments because of the higher pay (some 25% of the cavalry enlisted in "Spanish" units were found to be foreigners after a Royal Inquiry in 1613).
Reading about Spanish preconceived notions about ethnic troops is pretty funny, especially because in retrospect it's very politically incorrect. Apart from local Waloon regiments, the worst rated troops were the Germans, even if statistically they were some of the most steadfast and loyal. More in esteem were the Burgundians (slightly "better" Germans) and Irish and English Catholics. However, the English, who had already betrayed the crown of England, were not very trusted by the Spanish high command. Highest in esteem and second only to the Spanish were the Italians. However, it would seem that Italian soldiers were very spoiled. Wrote Philip II in 1577:
They [the Italians] are disorderly and on a long march would disintegrate unless great care was lavished upon them. But seeing that the Walloons cannot now be trusted as they used to be, and in order that there should be troops available to guard the reconquered towns without tying down the Spaniards (who are the men who have to fight the campaign) they may prove more valuable than the soldiers of any other nation except the Spaniards."
So although Spanish troops were preferred when fighting, the vast majority of garrison duty and border guarding was conducted by foreign troops. Although the preferred soldiers for this role were Italians, many were Germans, Burgundians and Walloons whose culture wouldn't have been all too different from that of the people they were interacting with.